Liberty activist Ademo Freeman caged for "wiretapping" - My defense of his right

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

Mimi & Eunice: Copy Animals

Liberty activist Ademo Freeman is in jail right now. He was (unjustly) imprisoned for the "crime" of recording his conversations with people without telling those people that he was recording them.

I wrote a blog post about his story that includes an argument I thought of that makes the case that people have the right to record their conversations with others without notifying them that they are being recorded.

Here is the blog post: "A Wiretapping Double Standard: Machines vs. Animals": http://wp.me/p2cdsV-bl

Do you agree with the argument I present? If not, why not? Thank you for your feedback in advance.

A quick summary of the argument:

1. People have the right to record their conversations with others using their brain.

2. Whether a conversation or piece of information can justly be recorded or not is not dependent on the tool (e.g. brain or electronic recording machine) used to record the conversation/information.

3. Therefore people also have the right to record their conversations with others with the help of non-brain tools, such as electronic recording machines.

Also, the argument for the sharing aspect of wiretapping*:

1. People have the right to share justly-acquired information with others.

2. Therefore, given the conclusion from the previous argument, people have the right to share information that they have recorded from their conversations with others, both when that information was recording using their brain and when that information was recorded using a recording machine.

For more information on Ademo Freeman’s caging see: http://www.copblock.org/freeademo/

Free Ademo!

* (Note: This is not what Ademo Freeman was convicted of. The State of New Hampshire says that the injustice was that he recorded the conversations, not that he shared the conversations with the public on YouTube. However, I am including this argument here anyway because in my experience people are as likely to believe that the sharing part is unjust as they are to believe that the recording part is unjust. And therefore, this argument is relevant to the question of whether or not it is just to imprison people like Ademo for recording others without notifying them and sharing the recordings with others.)

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

I revamped the OP to include a concise summary of my argument for those who do not wish to take the time to read my elaboration of the argument in my blog post.

Also, I added a pole to the thread because it occurred to me that many people here likely already agree that Ademo's caging is unjust and thus may not have the desire to read my argument and critique it in light of the fact that even if my argument is flawed, Ademo's caging is still unjust for other reasons (your reasons). If this is the case, you can just vote in the poll allowing me to learn what your opinions are without having to take the time to read my argument and write a reply to it. :-)

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

Is there really no one here in the Ron Paul Forums who believes that Ademo's caging is justified? I'm impressed.

Here is his final trial for anyone who wants to know the details of his case:

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

Someone voted "No!" Awesome, I would be glad to hear that person's reason for believing that Ademo's caging is unjust. My views can always change. Perhaps the person would like to share his or her reasoning here?

EDIT: Now two people said "No." Again, I would appreciate it if people offered an explanation for why they believe that caging Ademo is justified for the sake of possibly changing our views for the better.

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

Another question to think about with regard to this issue: If you call someone (or they call you--I don't believe it makes a difference) on the phone, do you have the right to tell other people what they said in the conversation?

To me the answer is a definite, "Yes, of course!" but I have recently heard the claim that you need the other person's permission to share what was said with others. Does anyone reading this believe this?

[PeaceRequiresAnarchy]

After Ademo was convicted William Kostric told the prosector that he was going to go home and wiretap the Manchester police. He did:

Not much of a conversation, but the point is that he did the same thing as Ademo and could be legally locked in prison as well if charged. What if someone doesn't want to fund this skewed sense of justice? Would you consider it acceptable for that person to stop funding the organization that imprisons these peaceful people and choose to purchase the justice services of a competing firm instead?

[fr33]

The 2 no voters are people that don't support confrontation with the police. There are some of us that are not quite there yet. I voted yes btw.

[Keith and stuff]

The NH Supreme Court tossed all 3 felony wiretap convictions against the founder of Cop Block. Usual law used.

February 11. 2014 10:02AM
Court tosses felony wiretap conviction in taping of Manchester police captain, high school officials
http://www.unionleader.com/article/2...WS07/140219859

CONCORD – The New Hampshire Supreme Court threw out the felony wiretapping convictions of the founder of CopBlock.org, a group that claims it polices the police, saying the judge made a mistake in instructing the jury, an error serious enough the jury could have found Adam Mueller innocent.

Mueller, 31, formerly of Jackson, Wis., but now residing in Laconia, was convicted of secretly recording telephone conversations he had with a Manchester police captain, the Manchester West High School principal and her assistant in 2011 and spent three months in jail.

He was seeking their comments on a video he posted on YouTube that showed a confrontation between West High student Frank Harrington III, 17, and police detective Darren Murphy in the school's cafeteria. Harrington was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

Murphy was recorded roughly pushing Harrington down onto a cafeteria table. A police department internal review concluded Murphy did not use excessive force.

Mueller, a Free Stater who goes by the name "Ademo Freeman," posted the telephone recordings online. Police learned of them when Mueller mentioned them on a local radio show and acknowledged he did not tell Capt. Jonathan Hopkins, then West High School principal Mary Ellen McGorry, or her assistant Denise Michael that he had recorded the conversations.

The Supreme Court, in its decision released Tuesday, said Hillsborough County Superior Court Judge Kenneth C. Brown erred when he instructed the jury that a violation of the felony wiretapping statute requires a mental state of "purposely," when the statute specifically identifies "wilfully" as the applicable mental state.

Under state law, "wilful" means the defendant must act with an intentional or reckless disregard for the lawfulness of his conduct. In other words, the defendant has not violated the law if he has a "good faith" belief his conduct was lawful, according to the unanimous decision written by Justice Robert J. Lynn.

The court said the erroneous instruction likely affected the outcome of the proceedings and to allow the convictions to stand "would seriously affect the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings."